Rose v. Franchetti’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2016
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2361
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts: (1) The transaction of any business in this State; (2) The commission of a tortious act within this State____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum state, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief. It must also weigh ... “the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Those pr e-Green cases which tracked their analyses to the specific wording of the statute remain valid after Green . But in those cases where the courts merely stated that the Illinois statute goes as far as due process will allow the precedential value today is minimal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.